Insults and Threats on Social Media: Complaints and Evidence in Türkiye

Under Turkish Criminal Code Article 125, an insult involves a concrete imputation or abusive expression capable of injuring a person's honour, dignity or reputation. The basic provision prescribes three months to two years of imprisonment or a judicial fine. A rude or unwelcome remark is not automatically a criminal insult.

Article 106 concerns threats of specified harm against a person or someone close to them. It is the threatened attack, its seriousness and context that matter. A post, comment, story, image, voice message or direct message can be relevant; the platform label does not decide the offence.

A target need not be named if the circumstances leave no doubt about the person addressed (Article 126). Responsibility still requires identification of the perpetrator and proof of the relevant elements.

Article 125(2) covers an audio, written or visual communication addressed to the victim. A direct message can therefore fall within the offence even if it was not sent to three other people. The separate rule for an insult committed in the victim's absence requires communication to at least three people.

Public commission increases the penalty by one sixth under Article 125(4). What matters is the possibility of access by an indeterminate audience. A court must examine the actual post, account settings, group structure and access conditions; merely saying that a statement appeared online does not establish publicity.

A private exchange is not automatically public. Conversely, an account described as closed does not settle the issue without examining who could see and circulate the particular content. Preserve evidence of the settings at the relevant time.

The words must be assessed as a whole, with their context, purpose, factual basis, public-interest dimension and target. Severe criticism, disagreement or discourtesy should not automatically be treated as an insult. At the same time, labelling a statement an opinion does not remove every unlawful attack on personality rights.

Article 125(3)(a) separately addresses insulting a public official because of their duty, with a minimum term of one year. The connection with the official duty must be established; simply being a public employee is not enough to classify every personal dispute under that paragraph.

Older judgments are fact-specific. An expression found lawful in one dispute is not a universal safe phrase for a different context.

Article 106(1) distinguishes threats against life, bodily integrity or sexual inviolability from threats of major property loss or other harm. The former carries six months to two years of imprisonment; where committed against a woman, the statutory minimum is nine months. The latter is complaint-dependent and carries two to six months or a judicial fine.

Qualified forms under Article 106(2), including the specified weapon, concealment or group-related circumstances, have a different framework. They must not be treated as ordinary paragraph (1) threats for complaint and reconciliation purposes.

A threat must be objectively capable of serious intimidation in its context; actual fear is not the sole test. A genuine notification that lawful proceedings will be brought is not, by itself, a threat of unlawful harm. The entire communication must nevertheless be examined.

• Complaint-dependent insult: Article 73 ordinarily allows six months from knowledge of both the act and the perpetrator, subject to limitation; the complaint may in no event exceed two years from the act under the additional rule for this offence.
• Insulting a public official because of duty: Article 131 excludes this form from the complaint requirement.
• Life, bodily-integrity or sexual-inviolability threats under Article 106(1): prosecution is not dependent on a victim's complaint.
• Major-property-loss or other-harm threats under Article 106(1): the complaint requirement and the ordinary Article 73 framework apply; the insult-specific two-year cap is not imported.

The offence date and transitional rules matter when applying amendments. Record when the content and the perpetrator became known. Withdrawal of a complaint has different consequences in complaint-dependent and non-complaint-dependent offences; it is not a universal way to terminate proceedings. Article 73 also contains conditions concerning the defendant and an express waiver of personal claims.

Under the current text of Article 75(6)(a)(2), insult under Article 125 is within prepayment, except paragraph (3)(a), concerning a public official because of duty. The prosecutor's notification, calculation, procedural stage, offence date and transitional provisions must be checked.

The ordinary Article 75 procedure gives ten days following the official notification to pay the prescribed amount and investigation expenses. If requested within that period, three equal monthly instalments may be allowed under the provision; a missed instalment has statutory consequences. The special repeat-offence restriction in paragraph (6) must also be checked.

Prepayment is not compensation paid to the victim. It does not itself extinguish private claims under Article 75(5). Paying a private demand is not a substitute for complying with the official procedure.

Criminal Procedure Code Article 253(3) excludes insult under Article 125 from reconciliation. Threat under Article 106(1) is expressly listed for reconciliation, including its non-complaint-dependent form. That does not mean every qualified threat is eligible.

Where a prepayment offence and a reconciliation offence are committed together against the same victim, Article 253(3) preserves reconciliation for the latter. Other combined offences may change the result. A reconciliation agreement can affect civil compensation under Article 253(19), unlike prepayment; its terms and exceptions deserve separate review.

1. Save the full message or discussion, not only a cropped sentence. Retain original files and the device where possible.
2. Record the exact post and profile URLs, username, date, time and surrounding conversation.
3. Document access conditions, including whether the particular content was publicly visible.
4. Keep records showing when you learned of the act and who the perpetrator was.
5. Where appropriate, consider formal preservation through a notary or judicial evidence procedure before deletion.

A screenshot is useful evidence but does not conclusively prove who operated the account. Login records, IP data, devices, platform responses and other evidence may need assessment together. An account name or a single IP address should not automatically be equated with the perpetrator.

Provide the prosecutor or law enforcement with the information you possess and request the relevant investigation. Collection depends on lawful powers and the availability of records; disclosure by a platform or a particular technical result cannot be guaranteed. A suspect alleging account misuse should preserve genuine security notifications and access records rather than delete potentially relevant material.

Civil Code Articles 24–25 provide protection against unlawful attacks on personality rights, including prevention, cessation and a declaration of unlawfulness where effects continue. Code of Obligations Article 58 addresses non-pecuniary compensation. The legal basis, proof, limitation and competent court require separate assessment from the criminal complaint.

Under Criminal Code Article 129, an insult in response to an unjust act or mutual insults may lead to a discretionary reduction or no punishment, subject to the precise statutory conditions. An insult in response to intentional bodily injury has its own rule. These provisions do not create a general licence to retaliate online.

The Constitutional Court annulled the former personality-rights procedure in Article 9 of Law 5651 (E.2020/76, K.2023/172). An old judgment using that provision must not be presented as the current general application route.

Article 9/A separately concerns violations of private life and has its own application and judicial-review requirements; it is not a remedy for every insulting remark. Platform reporting and appropriate civil protection may be considered according to the particular infringement. A criminal complaint alone does not automatically remove content.

If an attack is imminent, use the appropriate emergency and protective channels rather than rely solely on a platform report. Protective measures depend on their own conditions.

Suspension of pronouncement of judgment, other sentencing options and appeals depend on the applicable legislation and the actual file. An old case summary does not establish eligibility in a new case.

• Criminal Code No. 5237: Articles 73, 75, 106, 125, 126, 129 and 131.
• Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271: Articles 158 and 253.
• Civil Code No. 4721: Articles 24–25.
• Code of Obligations No. 6098: Article 58.
• Law No. 5651: annulled Article 9 and separate Article 9/A.
• Constitutional Court, E.2020/76, K.2023/172.
• Official Court of Cassation decision search.

Statutory provisions and the context of each decision should be read together. Historical reconciliation decisions about insult must be distinguished from the later amended rules.